|
Another GOP scandal (shocking, I'm sure)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
Here's the scoop.
| quote: | GSA Chief Is Accused of Playing Politics
Doan Denies 'Improper' Use of Agency for GOP
By Scott Higham and Robert O'Harrow Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, March 26, 2007; A01
Witnesses have told congressional investigators that the chief of the General Services Administration and a deputy in Karl Rove's political affairs office at the White House joined in a videoconference earlier this year with top GSA political appointees, who discussed ways to help Republican candidates.
With GSA Administrator Lurita Alexis Doan and up to 40 regional administrators on hand, J. Scott Jennings, the White House's deputy director of political affairs, gave a PowerPoint presentation on Jan. 26 of polling data about the 2006 elections.
When Jennings concluded his presentation to the GSA political appointees, Doan allegedly asked them how they could "help 'our candidates' in the next elections," according to a March 6 letter to Doan from Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Waxman said in the letter that one method suggested was using "targeted public events, such as the opening of federal facilities around the country."
On Wednesday, Doan is scheduled to appear before Waxman's committee to answer questions about the videoconference and other issues. The committee is investigating whether remarks made during the videoconference violated the Hatch Act, a federal law that restricts executive-branch employees from using their positions for political purposes. Those found in violation of the act do not face criminal penalties but can be removed from their jobs.
Waxman said in the letter that the remarks made during the videoconference have been confirmed by "multiple sources." Congressional investigators have taken statements from GSA employees and others in recent weeks.
The planned hearing is part of an expanding examination by Waxman's committee of Doan's tumultuous 10-month tenure as administrator of the GSA. The government's leading procurement agency annually handles about $56 billion worth of federal contracts.
The committee is also expected to question Doan about her attempt to give a no-bid job to a friend and professional associate last summer. In addition, the committee plans to look at Waxman's charge that Doan "intervened" in a troubled technology contract with Sun Microsystems that could cost taxpayers millions more than necessary.
In the Senate, Doan is facing a similar line of questioning in letters from Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa). Also examining Doan are the GSA's Office of Inspector General and the independent federal Office of Special Counsel, which investigates allegations of Hatch Act violations.
In several recent statements, Doan has said she did nothing wrong. She said her troubles are the result of retaliation by the inspector general over her efforts to rein in spending and balance the GSA budget. Doan, a wealthy former government contractor who sold her company before taking over the GSA last May, has hired three law firms and two media relations companies at her own expense to handle inquiries from the federal investigators and the news media.
"Ever since I made the decision to restore fiscal discipline to all divisions within GSA, I have had to face a series of personal attacks and charges," Doan said in a March 7 statement.
Doan did not respond to questions for this article. She said in the statement that she looks forward to facing the oversight committee.
"I am eager to have the chance to set the record straight and provide a full and complete record to Congressman Waxman and the Committee and refute these allegations," Doan said.
Waxman's investigation began in response to a Jan. 19 story in The Washington Post about a no-bid job Doan tried to give to firms run by Edie Fraser, a veteran Washington public relations executive who had served as a paid consultant to Doan. Waxman's investigators concluded that the two women had "a long-standing business relationship" that was not "previously disclosed," according to Waxman's letter.
Between 2003 and 2005, Fraser billed Doan as much as $20,000 a month in consulting fees to "generally promote attributes" of Doan and her company, New Technology Management Inc., according to invoices obtained by The Post. In all, Doan paid at least $417,500 to companies affiliated with Fraser before Doan took over the GSA, according to Waxman's investigators.
Last year, Fraser helped prepare Doan for her GSA confirmation and lined up political support for her, according to interviews and e-mails obtained by The Post.
On July 25, two months after Doan took office, she took the unusual step of personally signing the no-bid arrangement with Diversity Best Practices and Business Women's Network, firms then run by Fraser, to produce a report about GSA's use of businesses owned by minorities or women. The GSA's general counsel at the time, Alan R. Swendiman, told Waxman's investigators he was "alarmed" that the project was not competitively bid.
Last month, in a letter to Waxman's committee, a senior GSA official called the no-bid arrangement a "procedural mistake." Doan told The Post that she submitted a service order for the work through normal GSA contracting channels and did not focus on it afterward.
But Swendiman, now a special assistant to President Bush, told Waxman's investigators that he "immediately and repeatedly" advised Doan to terminate the arrangement. When he was unable to persuade her, Swendiman directed a GSA contracting officer to terminate the arrangement. The investigators found evidence indicating that Doan continued to try to find ways to award the project to her friend.
The committee's examination of the Jan. 26 videoconference could raise questions about the role of Jennings, the White House official who works for Rove.
Jennings's name has recently surfaced in investigations of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys around the country. He communicated with Justice Department officials concerning the appointment of Tim Griffin, a former Rove aide, as U.S. attorney in Little Rock, according to e-mails released this month. For that exchange, Jennings, although working at the White House, used an e-mail account registered to the Republican National Committee, where Griffin had worked as a political opposition researcher.
Jennings is a longtime political operative from Kentucky. He served as political director for Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in 2002 before joining the White House.
After Jennings and Doan spoke during the videoconference, one regional GSA administrator offered the suggestion that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) could be excluded from the opening of an environmentally efficient federal courthouse in San Francisco, which Pelosi represents, according to Waxman's letter. GSA manages the nation's federal courthouses.
The letter cited evidence that Doan then raised questions about "the upcoming opening of a courthouse in Florida," based on statements from participants in the videoconference. Doan noted that President Bill Clinton had suggested he might attend, and she "stated that an effort should be made to get Senator Mel Martinez, the General Chairman of the Republican National Committee, to attend," Waxman said in his letter to Doan.
"It would be an obvious abuse if you suggested to agency officials that the activities of the agency be manipulated to provide political advantages to Republican candidates," Waxman told her in the letter.
In a March 13 letter to Waxman, Doan wrote that "there were no improper political actions that occurred during or as a result of the January 26 teleconference."
Jennings declined to comment Friday and referred questions to the White House media affairs office. White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said Jennings did not ask GSA officials to help Republican candidates and described Jennings's presentation as "a factual assessment of the political landscape."
Waxman's committee also plans to question Doan about her alleged involvement last year in a technology contract with Sun Microsystems. The GSA, which collects a small percentage of the value of the contracts it handles, was at risk of losing substantial fees from the Sun contract if it was not renewed.
Two GSA contracting officers had balked at renewing the deal, citing findings by the GSA's inspector general that Sun was allegedly overcharging taxpayers, not giving discounts to the government that were made available to private companies.
Waxman's letter alleged that Doan "intervened" in the matter and that she suggested one of the contracting officers was too "stressed" and might be replaced. Days later, the agency brought in a new contracting officer, who approved the deal within two weeks.
That officer was later granted a previously denied transfer to an agency field office in Denver.
In a statement, Sun Microsystems said it cooperated with the audit.
"We are honored to be a government contractor, and our current contracts with GSA represent the culmination of over two years of very active negotiations," the statement said. "Any suggestion that GSA gave Sun special treatment during the negotiation process simply does not fit the facts."
Grassley, the senator questioning Doan, said in a statement Friday that Doan and her subordinates should have heeded warnings by the agency inspector general's office that problems with the Sun contract had been discussed with Justice Department officials.
"The allegations alone should have been a showstopper, but they instead chose to turn a blind eye, failed to take corrective action, and allowed a bad contract to move forward that will cost taxpayers millions of dollars," Grassley said. "It's unacceptable."
Doan has told Grassley and Waxman that she did nothing improper.
"There was no undue influence in the award of the Sun Microsystems renewal contract," she wrote to Waxman. "I had no role whatsoever in any personnel actions involving anyone involved in those contract negotiations."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...7032501048.html |
This whole event has now sparked a freeze on all RNC emails for further investigation:
| quote: | Monday, March 26, 2007
Administration Oversight
Committee Directs RNC to Preserve White House Emails
Citing evidence that senior White House officials are using RNC and other political email accounts to avoid leaving a record of official communications, Chairman Waxman directs the Republican National Committee and the Bush-Cheney ’04 Campaign to preserve the emails of White House officials and to meet with Committee staff to explain how the accounts are managed and what steps are being taken to protect the emails from destruction and tampering.
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1225 |
You see, using RNC and other political email accounts by WH officials (ahem, Rove) is a big no no, and it may be a direct violation of the Hatch Act of 1939:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939
That act prohibits partisan campaign activities on federal property. It also may be indicative of Rove and others attempting to avoid leaving an official record of communications.
Oh Dubya, you had a fun little powergrab run, but it's a real bitch when your "party before policy" slowly begins to catch up with you............. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| Not shocking at all. The GOP knew all this was coming. |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Not shocking at all. The GOP knew all this was coming. |
when they did it, or when the population grew wise to it? |
|
|
| Krypton |
| When the GOP lost the majority, they knew that the democrats and media would set about with the committees and hearings. Listen, the Republicans did the same thing, the democrats do it too. You try to eliminate the opposition any way you can. |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
| so the latter |
|
|
| Krypton |
| It's all trumped up!! |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
When the GOP lost the majority, they knew that the democrats and media would set about with the committees and hearings. Listen, the Republicans did the same thing, the democrats do it too. You try to eliminate the opposition any way you can. |
Hmm, I see. So calling in investigations for the distinct possibility of violating laws by senior members of this Administration are only a means to "eliminate the opposition any way you can"?
Silly me, and here I thought our Congress was actually doing their jobs, i.e. oversight of the Executive Branch. Gosh, how naive of me to think this Congress would actually do what the GOP lapdog Congress had deliberately and willingly failed to do for the past 6 years.
I hate it when I think like that! |
|
|
| Krypton |
| Come on Opus, Washington is screaming of bi-partisanship. It's more than cut-throat. Can't wait until the 2008 election. It's going to a gladiator fight. |
|
|
| MrSquirrel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Come on Opus, Washington is screaming of bi-partisanship. It's more than cut-throat. Can't wait until the 2008 election. It's going to a gladiator fight. |
Quoted the misuse of words for posterity.
MrS |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Come on Opus, Washington is screaming of bi-partisanship. It's more than cut-throat. Can't wait until the 2008 election. It's going to a gladiator fight. |
What's happening in Washington is exactly what the people have been requesting for years now. If a good percentage of America had its way, Bush would be impeached, along with his VP, the Dark Lord, and Satan himself, Karl Rove.
You want to say it's bi-partisanship, but did you echo that same sentiment in the late 90s with the Clinton blowjob incidents? This attorney scandal is gaining far more support from the other side of the chamber, simply because this is a big deal and some of the wiser Republican congressmen are aware and not willing to take the fall after this house of cards crumbles.
I'm sorry, but to me, the possibility of US attorneys getting canned over refusing to indict members of the opposite party immediately before elections or for indicting members of their own party far outweighs the negative effects of Clinton's on-the-job "jobs."
To be honest, I don't really understand how much corruption that you have to prove in order to get rid of an administration. If these s wouldn't have lied as much as they did in 2003-2004, there's no way he would have been re-elected, then all 93 US attorneys could have been removed like usual after a shift in partisan power.
BTW, I really hate how the GOP war machine is clamoring about how Clinton removed all 93 in 1993. See Lamar Smith's US Today editorial:
| quote: | Presidents need honest advice By Lamar Smith
Fri Mar 23, 6:43 AM ET
Every president has the right to be served by staff that supports his policies. This ensures that executive branch decisions are carried out. It also prevents U.S. attorneys from pursuing their own political agendas.
James Madison once said that "no power could be more completely executive than that of appointing, inspecting and controlling those who had the immediate administration of the laws." That is true today, too.
So it is curious that so much media attention has focused on eight U.S. attorneys who were asked for their resignations.
Bill Clinton fired 93 U.S. attorneys when he took office. And unlike President Bush, he did so without regard to merit. Among those Clinton fired were one in Arkansas who was investigating the president himself and another who was investigating Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, D-Ill.
The Bush administration has offered defensible explanations for dismissing the U.S. attorneys, including one's failure to prosecute human smugglers.
Democrats have launched a fishing expedition, but they have caught the reddest of red herrings. House and Senate Democrats are in a race to get presidential adviser Karl Rove in front of the cameras.
The president has rightly said he will not allow his personal staff to be subpoenaed. Any president - Republican or Democrat - needs honest advice to help make informed decisions on behalf of the American people. Unwarranted intrusion into private White House deliberations would have a chilling effect on the exchange of information. Congress should not impede the president's ability to gather information and make decisions.
The White House and the Justice Department are complying with Congress' requests. They have turned over thousands of documents and offered interviews with top White House and Justice officials. The administration has done more than anyone legitimately has a right to expect.
Historian Henry Adams said, "Practical politics consists in ignoring the facts." It is clear that those calling for subpoenas are more interested in politics and television coverage than uncovering the facts.
The Judiciary Committee should focus its energy on issues Americans care about - reducing crime, stopping illegal immigration and fighting terrorism, not on harassing a president for partisan political purposes.
Rep. Lamar Smith (news, bio, voting record) of Texas is the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.
|
Did these morons miss the mass removal when Bush entered in 2001? Or are they fictitiously remembering a purge that occured in 1997 similar to 2005's firings? I've read multiple editorials from Republican congressmen that obviously lack any sense historical accuracy or consitency. Clinton wiped the slate clean at the beginning of his term, while Bush cherry-picked those that didn't follow his instructions regarding who to prosecute immediately and who were prosecuted that hurt him following a mid-term.
Also, in response to Lamar Smith, President's do need advice. But as Ed Henry asked Tony Snow - "If no conversations occurred with the president, and no advice was given, then how can the White House assert executive privilege, claiming the need to shield presidential advice." His response was "That's an intriguing question." I'm sure the Supreme Court will agree with that it's an "intriguing" argument, which, no doubt, will finally be settled after this presidency has run it's course and caused another 2 years of damage to the American population and our standing in the world. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Come on Opus, Washington is screaming of bi-partisanship. It's more than cut-throat. Can't wait until the 2008 election. It's going to a gladiator fight. |
Funny how things change in the course of a mere six years. Why it only seems like yesterday when Bush and his Right Wing Noise Machine mouthpieces were droning on and on about a "mandate" in 2004 once they controlled all 3 branches. And now, oh so strangely that the Democrats control the Legislative and there's a bit more checks and balances not just between parties but between the branches of government, you guys are singing the tune of "bipartisanship".
Forgive me if I don't quite bite at that one.
As for what Washington, aka the Beltway blowhard media lapdogs like Joe Klein of Time Magazine or David Broder of Washington Post discuss with unsupported arguments of a need of "bipartisanship" by kissing up to Bush-lite twits like Joe Lieberman, you may very well be correct in stating that such twits want more bipartisanship. The rest of the country, however, sings a bit of a different tune, both before the election last November:
| quote: | "Do you think it would be good for the country or bad for the country if the Democrats in Congress were able to conduct official investigations into what the Bush Administration has done in the past six years?
8/30 - 9/2/06:
Good - 57%
Bad - 41%
Unsure - 2%
http://www.pollingreport.com/bush.htm |
and now:
| quote: | 4. Do you think Congress should -- or should not -- investigate the involvement of White House officials in this matter?
Yes, should - 72%; No, should not - 21%
15. If Congress investigates these dismissals, in your view, should President Bush and his aides -- [ROTATED: invoke "executive privilege" to protect the White House decision making process (or should they) drop the claim of executive privilege and answer all questions being investigated]?
Invoke executive privilege - 26%; Answer all questions - 68%
16. In this matter, do you think Congress should or should not issue subpoenas to force White House officials to testify under oath about this matter?
Yes, should - 68%; No, should not - 24%
http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/...-03-26-poll.htm |
Of course, few credible people anymore really believe what these bull, outdated Beltway Boys pundits (or the Republican party for that matter) have to say when they plead for "bipartisanship". |
|
|
|
|
